Joe Cool wrote:The manager assumes all blame for the actions of his employees. It is his responsibility to train and educate his underlings on all relevant policies and laws. The manager could have put a firm end to the encounter at any point. The fact that he didn't shows his lack of a spine and his poor leadership qualities. It is not my job to put his employees in their place, it is his.
You are right, no one made me go back there. I did so because there was obviously no other way to diffuse the situation and I relished the opportunity to prove the old man wrong, which I did. Again, the whole thing shouldn't have happened in the first place, which is why the blame rests on the manager's shoulders. I also wanted to bring this issue to the attention of management. Although I am sure that a manager such as this one has little more in him than donuts and apathy.
I considered the smartphone option. I decided against it for several reasons. The first being that I get poor service in Cabela's, I didn't believe the older man would have been capable of reading such small text or understand how to operate the device, and I didn't want them holding my phone.
I could also really care less what the old guy thinks of feels. He was wrong and it was beyond even a question of my rights. He was in the wrong in the aspect of customer service. You don't treat customers like that under any circumstance, no matter the cause. The old man had his point and I had mine. It just so happens that I was completely right and he was completely wrong.
If you're okay with this kind of behavior I suggest you also boycott Starbucks today. It is unacceptable.
+1SuperSoaker wrote:It read like a short-story. Nice writing! Unfortunately, the whole OC-and-wait-for-someone-to-question-it is a bit tired, in my opinion.
It is hard to turn back 50 years of social conditioning that has taught the public to fear guns. It's not going to happen in one day, and will take a slow, consistent, considerate effort. Keep it up, but it is better for everyone to keep snarkiness to a minimum, in my opinion.
Joe Cool wrote:We stopped at Wal-Mart to buy some of the things we had originally intended on buying at Cabela's. There were dozens more people there and many, many more employees. No one said a single thing as we gave our money to a business that respects our rights.
Snowman wrote:Just think about flies, vinegar and honey.
SuperSoaker wrote:Unfortunately, the whole OC-and-wait-for-someone-to-question-it is a bit tired, in my opinion.
My Trigger Guard wrote:Ya I am kind of mixed on this wall of text, that is well written. I am very glad you are up to date with the laws and abide by them. I am glad the situation was rectified. I just can't help but read in some young big ego the way things are painted. Why well becuase that little office you mention I have spent several hours in there on multiple occasions myself, its not there for detain and question room. Its there research/ballistics and custom special ordering room. They are ussually quite busy too. I have as well OCed there many times before without issue. It is also law that they can not sell handguns to under 21, so I could understand not showing them to him.
I guess I just do not like the way the situation was painted, I am at cabelas an awful lot and have had no problems, could they be better trained definatly. Again I am quite happy that you stood up for your rights though as it should be. Just remember that your representing all the other 20 and 21 year old packers out there, guns and ego's dont mix.
Enough said and I see rebutle's to some of the others already stating you where calm and courteus, so enough said, Carry on
DaKnife wrote:One more point to consider. As to you the older gentleman was totally in the wrong. But as to your friend he was partially right. Your friend can carry. But where the gentleman was most likely confused is it is illegal for a FFL to sell a handgun to anyone under the age of 21. He works in a gun shop, he HAS to know who he can and can't sell to. He confused this with who can carry. It also explains why they didn't want to let your friend even look at a handgun. Now there I think they did cross the line, as a 20 year old is very likely to soon become a 21 year old so why shouldn't he be allowed to browse and check out items he will soon be able to buy. The law doesn't say he can't look at them just that he can't buy one, or rather that the FFL can't sell one to him.
So again your outrage IMHO far outweighs the crime. He was wrong, but it was more confusion between laws rather than being totally wrong. And being an FFL (or working in a FFL shop, not sure how that all works), it's good that he is quite clear on who he can and cannot sell to. He was just confused as to how far the prohibition extended. And semi-rightfully so. If he forgets the prohibition is only applicable to FFL's then it can be confusing as to how a 20 year old obtained the piece he's packing, and thus get confused as to the age of legal carry.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 sub paragraph (b) 1 for the cited federal law.
scooter wrote:Joe Cool wrote:We stopped at Wal-Mart to buy some of the things we had originally intended on buying at Cabela's. There were dozens more people there and many, many more employees. No one said a single thing as we gave our money to a business that respects our rights.
Did I hear (read) you right??? Wal-Mart over Cabelas for respecting your gun rights?
schmack wrote:You probably shouldn't be urinating on the walls....
Users browsing this forum: jfwright1955 and 6 guests